Quoting Nikolaus Rath (nikol...@rath.org): > Hmm. I think defaulting to /etc/samba/private now, only to have another > transition once we've convinced upstream to comply with FHS is inviting > trouble. > > If we have to obey FHS, wouldn't it be much easier to just replace > fhs-filespaths.patch with a patch that replaces the *default* value for > "private dir" to /var/lib/samba/private?
Good idea, indeed. The simplest one and one not involving any transition, really. You get a GO from my side for this change..:-) Even more : the location wrt the FHS could be debatable : after all /var/lib/samba/private is not such a bad place. > In that case, the transition should be painless in almost all cases. No > data needs to be moved, and no smb.conf adjusted in most cases. > > The only case that could cause problems is systems that have defined > "private dir" in smb.conf but relied on it being ignored. But these > cases could be handled by a warning in NEWS.Debian. If that's not > enough, we could have the postinst check smb.conf and give a warning if > "private dir" is defined. But I don't think that we have to care too > much about systems whose configuration relies on an obvious bug > (configuration setting being ignored). Agreed too. Adding a warning (debconf note or error) is too much hassle for such a corner case and NEWS.Debian is fine for this.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
